Value of Unique Device Identification in the Digital Health Infrastructure

Journal JAMA
Authors Wilson, Natalia A.; Drozda, Joseph Jr.
Year Published 2013
Link to Publication

IN RECENT YEARS, HIGH-PROFILE CASES OF MEDICAL device failure resulting in patient harm—such as implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads and metal-on metal hip implants—have received substantial attention both in the medical literature and popular press. These examples illustrate the need for a more effective system of monitoring device performance and protecting patient safety. The first action in the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) report on strengthening postmarket device surveillance, “establish a Unique Device Identification (UDI) System and promote its incorporation into electronic health information,” was addressed with publication of the UDI Proposed Rule.

This viewpoint article by Natalia Wilson and Joseph Drozda, published prior to publication of the Final Rule, highlights the role of UDI in supporting an effective medical device monitoring system and enhanced patient safety. The authors lay out the expected benefits of a UDI system to strengthen post market surveillance of medical devices, ensure ability to track a device across health care settings, support safe and accurate device use, standardize device documentation in health information technology (HIT) systems, enhance recall management, and support health care cost savings.

Postmarketing Surveillance of Medical Devices – Filling in the Gaps

Journal New England Journal of Medicine
Authors Resnic, Frederic S.; Normand, Sharon-Lise T.
Year Published 2012
Link to Publication


Failures of implantable medical devices, although rare, can carry a substantial risk of serious injury. From 2000 through 2011, more than 150 new highrisk medical devices were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through the premarket approval (known as PMA) process, and an additional 600 devices were cleared through the less demanding 510(k) process, in four medical specialty areas (cardiovascular care, neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, and orthopedics; see graph). The problem that Hauser describes (pages 873–875) — the erosion of the insulation in St. Jude Medical’s Riata leads for implantable cardioverter–defibrillators — highlights the fact that medical devices are complex assemblies of multiple components, and the failure of any single component can lead to unexpected and serious safety problems. Because it is impossible to design an implantable medical device with zero risk of failure, effective systems for monitoring safety after a device is on the market are essential for protecting the public health. Moreover, since incremental
changes are made in medical devices throughout their life cycles, it is impractical to prospectively study each change comprehensively before marketing. Balancing the need for robust postmarketing safety monitoring with the need to avoid the stifling of innovation is a prime responsibility of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the FDA.